At the Las Vegas NeonCon the beginning of November, I got a chance to play this mod.

Spoiler:

At the very start, we're told by the GM that getting to the Chasm as fast as possible is a priority so we HAD to either spend 2PP each for teleport or pay cash for the spell. We put forth other options, such as one of our players had purchased the vanity award for a ship and would use that to get us there faster but we were again told that we had to teleport, and we had to foot the bill for it.

I had just come off of two GM credits so I had the cash to buy a scroll of teleport, and we were lucky enough to have a mage almost high enough to cast the spell. After his Caster Level check to use the scroll, we arrived and started.

But what about parties without someone who can teleport or means of rapid overland travel?

I realize that 1125 gold may not seem like much (unless everyone just finished upgrading like most of the party had), but to have to pay that or give up your total posilbe PP from the scenario just to play the scenario seems wrong. What happens if nobody has the cash to buy the scroll, pay the cost for spellcasting (450g per person) or can't/won't pay the PA? Do they have to leave the table now?

I haven't had the chance to read the scenario and see if maybe I missed something, but I'd like some input as to why the scenario is set up this way or what should have been done different?

Just another quick clarification issue: Assume you have 2 archetype that replace or alter a class feature identically, ie if one gives you smite evil once perday, and the other give smite evil once perday, but none of the other class feature replacements are replacing a class feature of the same type or level is it still legal? I assume so, since it's identical feature without any difference, but they are 2 different archtypes.

If I'm reading this right, you're asking if an arhcetype replaces class ability "A" with Smite Evil 1/day, and another replaces class ability "B" with Smite Evil 1/day, do they stack? In this case, I think they do and they're not modifying the same ability. However, if they both replace the same ability at any point in their progression you can't take both.

Name: Avik
Race: Oread
Class: Cleric 3/Wizard 1
Adventure: Trial of the Beast
Location: Marshy area
Catalyst: Phase Spider, Deciding to play when half the party called off at the last moment
The Gory Details:
3 of our 6 players backed out of that week's game on the game day, so those of us already there decided to go forward. We were just starting "Trial of the Beast" and making our way to Lepostadt. We reasoned we'd split the books up into two parties so the Whispering Way wouldn't be able to get them all if they attacked.

Spoiler!:

After meeting a travelling circus stopped on the side of the road, we found out one of their performers was missing. We decided to go after her, as a safe place to sleep would be nice. (We had run into a wyvern earlier, which the 3 of us managed to bludgeon into submission.)

The magus/cleric, monk and Avik managed to follow the tracks to a swampy area and were attacked by the spider once we found the girl's body. The creature was hard to hit, but doing devastating damage whenever it hit us. During one point while it was phased out, the monk grabbed the girl's body and took off to go warn the circus. (This monk was a Tetori, and grappling something that phases out as a free action isn't very effective.) The magus managed a powerful hit, channeling a shocking grasp through his sword. He was charging up to use another one, but he could not take another hit from the creature. Avik taunted the creature, goading it into attacking him even though any blow landed would finish him off. If did indeed, a spectacular hit that saw the creature's mandibles sever Avik's head. This was followed by another spectacular hit, this time from the magus who skewered the beast on his scimitar.

So I'm curious: how does this work if I have enough BAB to merit two attacks? say, if my normal is +6/+1, can I attack with the claws and bite each twice? Or would they still be one attack each? (in which case I would want to be kicking people and using the claws and bite at the -5)

Someone mentioned above this wasn't the best use of feral mutagen. I'm curious, what would people consider the best use?

That was me. What I was trying to say is that taking levels of monk kinda invalidate the Feral Mutagen, as you're getting 2 d6 attacks. While you get more possible damage with the c/c/b (d4/d4/d8), it's harder to enhance them than a monk's attack and you have to keep your hands free. (Bless weapon and magic weapon work on a monk's hands, and you can hold stuff in both hands and still get full attacks.)

A full Attack action is a type of full-round action. It's under the heading of "Full-Round Actions" on page 187 of the Core Rulebook....

You are mistaken from a rules text perspective. Flurry of blows is employed in a Full Attack (which is a sub category of full round action)... a Full Attack lets you use all your attacks. A monk using flurry could do what I described above, if I didn't neglect to read this:

Flurry of Blows:
A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

The above is a necessary inclusion in the rules as Flurry of Blows is a Full Attack Action.

So, if you like Kick/Kick/Bite/Claw/Claw might I suggest Two Weapon Fighting? :D

A simple full attack would work for Kick/bite/claw/claw

**EDIT**

I missed that part of the rules as well. That info should be moved up with the FLurry of blows initial desciption to avoid confusion.

I know I must be reading something wrong, but I have looked it over a few times and cannot find anything that would make me think otherwise.

Take a simply rogue and take the following rogue talents.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

The rogue would take Forgotten Trick from the ninja list.

** spoiler omitted **

With this combination a Rogue can use any of the Ninja tricks which includes combat trick (any combat feat) for a number of rounds equal to their level. The fact that forgotten trick has such a high price is really not all that bad. A player having the power to use any combat fear or ninja talent even if it only will last a few rounds is broken.

I don't think it's broken. You have to meet the prereqs for any feat you pick up with Combat Trick. (It doesn't say you don't have to meet the prereqs, at least.) That right there prevents you from taking many of the chain feats. No Power Attack? No Cleave, then.

Now, I could see this being exceedingly useful with two such characters. Each pends the Ki points to take a teamwork feat. Other than some situational benefits, I think the tricks would be better spent on combat tricks themselves.

Cool, but it says one type of natural weapon, and the damage isn't increased, so if I did this would there really be a reason to take the feral mutagen? It seems I could attack with claws and bite, or I can furry of blows with claws which would be worse while a low level than a normal full-round attack, and then at higher monk levels I'd just furry of blows and never use my bite.

Well, that depends. Claws deal slashing, while IUS is bludgeoning (unless you have a style or ability that changes that). Situationally, that could be useful, but you can easily get the same effect by using a monk slashing weapon. I'd have to agree with you that it's not the best way to use the Feral Mutagen, though.

Err... a full attack action... is a full attack action? Flurry is not a full-round action which is different and would replace the normal Full Attack Action...

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Natural Attack Rules:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

A full Attack action is a type of full-round action. It's under the heading of "Full-Round Actions" on page 187 of the Core Rulebook. Additionally, on page 183, it lists "Full attack" under the "Full-Round Actions" on the AoO table.

So you couldn't use your natural attacks and squeeze in a flurry of blows for a couple extra attacks. You could use all the natural attacks provided by your BAB, or you could Flurry, getting all the Unarmed Strikes provided by your BAB+1 from the flurry.

Sounds like I'd want to mix him with the Unarmed Fighter archetype then. I don't get stunning fist, but I get a free style feat even if I don't yet qualify for it.

It depends on hom much you want to dip. 2 levels of monk gets you Improved Unarmed Strike, imrpved unarmed damage and two free feats. If you use the "Master of Many Styles" archetype, you don't need the other prereqs for those style feats. And while the selection isn't as vast as a fighter's, it might net you better bonuses.

Also, looking it up, Feral Combat Training allows you to use your natural weapon with flurry of blows.

Do you mean using one fist and one claw? Again that makes sense to me, but can you mix those? If you punch and aren't a monk it's 1 attack. If you have claws and a bite you get 3. Can you switch one of those claws out for a fist?

Yes you could do that, but I prefer the claw/claw/bite/Flurry of Blows kick/Flurry of Blows kick

Flurry of Blows is a full-attack action, so you couldn't combine it with natural attacks.

The Core Rulebook - 4th Printing: wrote:

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurrry of blows as a full-attack action...

I'm playing around with an Alchemist, Beastmorph Archetype with the feral mutegen discovery. What I want to make is a character who specializes in hand-to-hand fighting who transforms to make himself more powerful and specializes in claws and bite, but I'm not sure how the rules work with natural weapons.

I was thinking of multi-classing with Monk, but a monk's furry of blows doesn't work with natural weapons (go figure,) but what about style feats? Could he use scorpion style, drop into mantis style, use stunning fist, or anything like that with claws? Realistically I see no reason why not, but all those abilities just say "use with your unarmed strike," which according to the rules, natural weapons are different from.

And while we're on the subject of augmented strikes, if a monk or, say, this alchemist were to take some necromancy levels and cast chill touch, could he, instead of making touch attacks, just rip people with his claws and add the spell's damage to his successful attacks? Again it makes sense to me, but I've seen nothing in the rules to suggest one way or the other.

There is feat in Ultimate Combat you could take that allows you to use any other feat (like combat styles!) with your natural weapons instead. So they definately don't cross over normally, but thankfully there is a feat that allows it. Don't have UC with me at the moment, but I think it is called Feral Combat Style and you need Improved Unarmed and Weapon Focus (Natural weapon) to get it. Pretty good (though not optimal) especially if you've dipped into monk (gets you Improved Unarmed so that saves a feat and there is an archetype in UC that lets you take Style feats without prereqs) as when your not going Feral you will still have your better than normal unarmed with all of your style feats.

Was considering doing something similar for an eidolon (without the dip obviously) so that he could do things like use Boar Style to add bleed to his attacks.

The feat name is right, I beleive. The archetype is "Master of Many Styles", but you only get to ignore the prereqs on the ones you pick as monk bonus feats. That being said, if you're gonna double-dip like that take Snake Style. It allows you to use a Sense Motive roll to replace your normal or touch AC vs. one attack (it's used as an immediate action). Coupled with the "Skilled (Sense Motive)" evolution, you can almost effectively negate one attack a round.

I'm playing around with an Alchemist, Beastmorph Archetype with the feral mutegen discovery. What I want to make is a character who specializes in hand-to-hand fighting who transforms to make himself more powerful and specializes in claws and bite, but I'm not sure how the rules work with natural weapons.

I was thinking of multi-classing with Monk, but a monk's furry of blows doesn't work with natural weapons (go figure,) but what about style feats? Could he use scorpion style, drop into mantis style, use stunning fist, or anything like that with claws? Realistically I see no reason why not, but all those abilities just say "use with your unarmed strike," which according to the rules, natural weapons are different from.

And while we're on the subject of augmented strikes, if a monk or, say, this alchemist were to take some necromancy levels and cast chill touch, could he, instead of making touch attacks, just rip people with his claws and add the spell's damage to his successful attacks? Again it makes sense to me, but I've seen nothing in the rules to suggest one way or the other.

The feats, such as Stunning Fist and Elemental Fist, apply to Unarmed Attacks. These are their own attack type of attack, and as such can't normally be used with your claws. There is a feat, in Ultimate Combat I believe, that allows you to use unarmed strick feats with a specific natural weapon. It requires Weapon Focus with the natural weapon you want to use.

As for the styles, you can use those whenever you like. Abilities that buff Stunning Fist and the like only apply when you can use the Stunning Fist.

As for the spell, you can apply a held touch spell through a melee attack (not a weapon though). However, you have to cast the spell first, then use your normal melee attack second. This usually means you're using up two rounds to do it. The benefit is that if, for some reason you had a higher crit range or modifier on your unarmed/natural attack it would apply to the spell. Also, yes, you could do a full attack the round after you cast the spell and get the bonus on each attack assuming you have enough charges of the spell.

I guess it's just me but I see the Changeling as slughtly OP if you look at it right.
It's really the claws + Hulking + chr/wis bonus that is the kicker for me.
Play a Changeling Monk/Magus and by 6-7th level you'll be attacking 5 times a round for 2D6+X while casting a spell along with an obnoxiously high AC, movement Speed, Saves and Pounce(when you get 3rd level spells) makes this an amazing race to build a melee monster on.

(Yes you could try to do this with other races but the natural attacks, stat bonuses and unique abilities makes this one of the best choices to build with)

I don't see the claw attacks being useful in that build. They're only d4, and you can't use monk abilities on them without investing 2 feats (Weapon Focus-Claws is a prereq for the feat that lets you use monk special abilities with a natural attack). Unless I missed something somewhere, Unarmed Strike is a type of attacks, just like Claws. Claws are considered Natural Weapons, and suffer a -5 penalty to hit if you use a manufactured weapon to attack with as well.

It is true that this race lends itself to certain melee classes well. However, that mostly because, in my opinion, the other racial options are pretty much useless. And if you're going to take +1 damage, you migh as well play something that can get the benefit.

Name: Ananti
Race: Changeling
Classes/levels: Summoner (synthesist) 3
Adventure: The Haunting of Harrowstone
Location: The Splatterman
Catalyst: The Splatterman
The Gory Details: Having already defeated The Piper of Illmarsh and Father Charlatan, the party had divided up the remaining 3 items so that they wouldn't have to dig around packs to get the right item out, and Ananti ended up with the book. When our names started appearining in blood on the walls, a combination of magic and melee defeated the haunt. When the Splatterman appeared, Ananti started ripping pages out of the book. Surviving 2 rounds of his magic missiles, she cast shield on herself. Of course, at that point he started attacking. She lasted through 2 of his attacks, being healed by both party clerics between attacks.

The third attack dropped her to -11, with an 11 Con (after the eidolon disappeared). The nearest cleric, not realizing how hurt she was, stepped over her body and dealt the final blow to The Splatterman, only to hear his companion breathe her last breath and expire beneath his feet.

Funeral rites were administered at the temple of Pharasma, and her body was shipped home to her family.

First off, I agree comparing a 16th level ability to a base one is a little off target. However, forcing a character to take a specific path with their eidolon is also not the way to go (in my opinion, at least). It's like forcing a two-weapon fighter to choose only longswords and shortswords, clerics to only have healing and sun domains if they are good or allow a necromancy wizard to only have necromantic spells in their spellbook. Many role-playing concepts become invalidated by this requirement.

How would spellcasting the way you describe work with a small synthesist in a medium eidolon? They obviously have room to move their arms, so would they be able to cast spells in an armless eidolon? What about a medium caster in a large eidolon?

I'd say let the evolutions "Limbs" and "Tail" count for spellcasting purposes. If that seems overpowered (which I don't think it is), add a 1-point evolution that allows those extremeties to count as arms for spellcasting purposes. This addresses most of the rule problems, as these extremeties are still affected by being grappled, held, etc. Another option, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is change the way the Synthesist gets stats from his eidolon. Make it something like "A sythesist gains the following modifiers to their physical ability scores when fused with their eidolon, depending on the eidolon's base form:
Biped: +6 Strength, +2 Dexterity, +3 Constitution
Quadraped: +2 Strength, +6 Dexterity, +3 Constitution
Serpentine: +4 Strength, +4 Dexterity, +3 Constitution
These bonuses are independent of the bonuses to Strength and Dexterity gained by an eidolon as the summoner levels."

By requiring arms, you are forcing players to either a)abandon their character concept and buy arms (unles their concept has arms, of course) or b)blow evo points/feat on it.

How about replacing the Summon Monster ability? Maybe swap out the Summon Monster SLA with the following:

"Summon Eidolon: Starting at 1st level, a synthesist's bond to his fused eidolon is so powerful that he can call it at a moment's notice. A summoner can summon and fuse with his eidolon (as if using the "Summon Eidolon" spell) as a spell-like ability. He can use this ability as a standard action. He can use this ability a number of times a day equal to 3+ his Charisma modifier. The eidolon remains for only 1 round per level (instead of 1 minute per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the summoner can use this ability 1 extra time per day.

Additionally, as long as a sythesist is fused with an eidolon with the "Limbs (Arms)", "Limbs (Legs)" or "Tail" evolution, he can cast spells requiring somatic compnents while fused. This in all ways like casting a spell while not fused, and is subject to all the same rules (casting while threatened, pinned, violent motion, etc.). These abilities replace a summoner's "Summon Monster" ability."

These are just my ideas, and I hope they find merit here. I have some other thoughts on base forms I'll be posting in the summoner thread, but I wanted to post these here.

But a 4th-level Druid can't wildshape at all. Doesn't that mean that the Shaman can't use it for non-totem shapes until 8th level?

Actually druids get wild shape at 4th level in Pathfinder, that aside just for the affects of what animals they can turn into and hours duration take them as 4th level.

Correct.

Level 4-5, druids would normally get WS. An animal shaman does not get any wild shape at all at those levels (but can use their separate totem transformation power).

At 6th level, they finally gain the WS ability. When using it to assume the form of their totem, they are treated as if they were 8th level druids in all respects (see my above post). When using it to assume any other form, they are treated as 4th level druids in all respects (again, see above).

Jason or anyone else:

After reading hundreds of messages under Druid Shaman in this forum I need some clarification.

1) Official rule is that a Shaman can WS at lvl 6 and not 4. Correct?

I don't know if an official errata has been issued on the subject. Check the FAQ page on the website.

It was my design intention that an animal shaman would get *NO* wild shaping at all until 6th level, at which point they would wild shape at +2 levels into their totem and -2 levels into anything else. In other words, they could turn into a Small/Medium animal of any kind 1/day for 4 hours (as a 4th level druid wild shaping), and into a Large/Medium/Small/Tiny animal of their totem type 2/day on top of that for 8 hours (as an 8th level druid wild shaping).

If you are playing PFS or any other RAW rules campaign, the above opinion is merely that and carries no official weight.

Michael Martinez-Colon wrote:

2) When doing a Shaman, do you loose the ability to WS into plants and elementals or you can do it but at a -2 lvl adjustment starting at lvl 6?

To the best of my recollection, the...

Here's a question for you. (And I apologize if this was answered - I didn't see it in the posts).

If you apply a template for WS, say a Huge dire bear, do you use the updated die of damage that the template applies? I realize that you use only the stat modifiers given by WS, but this is outside of that. Would your reach increase, since it's not explicitly covered by WS?

I would say so, otherwise it's just a "flavor" thing that penalizes those animal archetypes that don't have Huge animals that fall into their specialized realm.

Of course, none of this matters for RAW until we have an errata for the archetypes.

There was a thread on this with the archetype designer commenting on the Shaman archetypes. Here is the link.

Intent-wise, you can't Wild-Shape until 6th level, where it acts as Wild Shape III for your totem animal but Wild Shape I for anything else.

Additionally, you kinda-sorta can apply templates for shape-shifting. You can shape-sift to a huge bear, for instance. However, you only get the Wild Shape stat bonuses, NOT the bonuses for the template. The WS covers all the bonuses for turning into a creature of that specific size. It wasn't clear if you'd modify the damage dice based on the template or not. I'd say so, as a huge bear doing the same dice of damage as a large bear doesn't make sense. (Yes, you get some extra strength bonuses ut that still doens't make up for it.)

My thoughts, but please review the thread I mentioned above for further clarifications.

Thinking about playing a LN gnome cleric of Asmodues with Fire Domain, using the Theologian Archtype and taking the Pyromaniac racial alternative.

Pryomaniac is treated as one level higher when casting fire descriptor spells or granted powers of the Fire Domain.

Theologian has Focused Domain which treats all level-dependent effects of the granted powers as if you were two cleric level higher.

Does Theologian & Pyromaniac stack to make it three levels higher? The first level Fire domain spell is burning hands. Would I be casting it at first level as if I was a 4th level cleric or not?

I think that would depend on what type of bonuses they are. WIthout my books in front of me, I'd assume the Pyromaniac gives a racial and Focused Domain is something else (sacred or profane, perhaps.) If that's teh case, then yeah, they should stack. The wouldn't if they were the same bonus type, however.

I've read the FAQs, and while I know the armor a Sythesist wears is rendered "inert" while fused it doesn't say anything about putting armor on the Eidolon. I only bring this question up because a normal Eidolon can't wear armor because it interferes with the connection to the summoner. However, with a synthesist being inside the eidolon I don't see how it can interfere.

Now, I'm not trying to super-power this class. However, when I look at what you give up with a synthesist I don't feel like you get enough back.

What you give up:

The eidolon's skills. The eidolon in this instance can be used to fill missing party roles.

The eidolon's feats. If you want your eidolon to be able to pwer attack, it's YOUR feat you're using. Same with weapon use.

The ability for anyone but you to heal your eidolon. While any sort of healer can heal a normal summoner's eidolon, only the summoner-specific spells can heal a synthesist's. (A separate eidolon could even use a standard cure potion if they had arms.)

The extra actions provided by the eidolon.

The ability to use the Eidolon as a distance buffer between you and your target. As a synthesist, once your Eidolon is out of HP you immediately start taking damage.

Having the ogres head land in the next county sounds pretty climactic to me.

That was only the first strike, which brought him to just below half. The other attacks before his next turn finished him off. But you're right, I shouldn't just think about it being anti-climactic just because the first shot was a crit and not the last one.

To Jagyr - no, he was 5 feet from being in range of his original target, unfortunately. That was a little snagging point as well - it was the movement getting into range that provoked the AoO. Again, so as to not bog down our time slot I just ruled he was stopped before getting into range.

I agree with what's been posted here, that if he was interrupted prior to his base movement he would still have a standard action left (most likely being used to hit whoever stopped him).

Hi, all. I ran a game this weekend and the monk in the party threw a brain-twister my way. When an ogre went to charge PC "A" he ran right past PC "B", who got an AoO. PC "B" was a monk, and used his Stunning Fist on the AoO to apply the fatigued condition to the ogre. Now, while fatigued you can't run or charge. This brought up several questions:

1) Does becoming fatigued end his charge?

2) If it does end his charge, can he still attack someone other than his original target if he's in range?

3) If he doesn't get his attack, is he still considered to have charged and thus take a penalty to his AC?

It was ruled at the table that it did indeed end his charge, and he did not take an attack on anyone even though there were 3 other targets in range. I didn't give him the penalty to his AC, however. (Not that it mattered). It did make this particular Ogre a little anti-climactic, as he was destroyed before his next round of attacks could come around. (39-point crit was the deciding factor in this). However, looking at it with some time to reflect he should still have been able to attack someone in range, just as you can switch targets with multiple attacks.

If by "Dedicated Healer" they just mean someone with a ton of healing spells, keep the druid and get some wands. My druid in PFS does that - keeps a wand and doesn't bother to memorize a spell. Alternatively, get a couple pearls of power, 1st-3rd level. That way, you can memorize 1 cure spell and cast it one additional time per appropriate pearl. However, I know that sometimes you have to sacrifice a bit of your fun so everyone can enjoy themselves.

A couple of suggestions, though:

I had a fun concept of a cleric of Desna with travel and exploration domains. Had a 10' speed increase as well as the ability to see through stone walls once a day. Gives you some more utility and might be more fun

It may seem like a real jerk maneuver, but I'd let your party know that if anyone else dies, they should roll up a cleric so that you can play something else.

if you don't want to do that, then I'd at least recommend that you tell them you're going to play your new druid idea if you're unlucky enough to die again.

I know this comes off a little harsh, but you should not have to give up all your fun because you're the only one willing to compromise for your party.

Now, I do realize I may have mis-interpreted your group's attitude but it sounds to me like a case of everyone wanting to be up rolling the damage diceand nobody wanting to take a "boring" role like healer.

I hope this helps, and I deeply apologize if this comes off like me being a ****.

Class skills, so someone doesn't put a half point in every knowledge?
That would come up if my gaming group ever start playing again.

Goth Guru, class skills don't work that way in PFS. Class skills get a +3 bonus to them as long as you have put at least 1 rank in them. (You also don't get the x4 at first level.)

This is one of the things that make it so possibly overpowering. Since you can't make knowledge skills untrained, you can put 1 into every skill and then hope for 20, or put the skills into diplomacy while you're in town. When you head for a dungeon, take it off, wait a day, put it back on and suddenly have ranks in disable device.

I don't believe that skill points were listed on the Ioun stones because it's assumed that people are taking it off to sleep, thereby preventing it from ever getting to the point where it would matter. If you are going to keep it on, I'd rule that you'd treat it like a headband inthis thread. It specifically states that the decision to handle the headband this way was to prevent skill point abuse and massive tracking.

I'd definately mark this question to be FAQ'd so that we can get an official response.

First off, the link to pinned above is obsolete. It was from 2009, and has been incorporated into the errata and new books. Therefore, toss it out the window.

Second, if helpless and pinend are the same thing, why are there two different entries on table 8-6? I don't see individual entries for bound, sleeping, paralyzed or unconcious, which are specifically listed as examples of helpless. Since they are listed as separate entries, don't try and merge them. Go with how it's writtten - pinned in not helpless, they just lose their dex bonus to AC and take an additionall -4 penalty as well as have a limited set of actions to choose from.

If you want to make a pinned opponent helpless, bind him up on your next action. THEN he's helpless and you can do what you will.

I ran this adventure over the weekend and had a question about GM credit - is the "Exemplar of Falcon's Hollow" reward something a GM gets? I only ask because I'm not sure if it falls under the "regional

boons, or future bonus dice rolls" heading.

I'm guessing it does fall under this category and am not taking it regardless, but I'd like to know whether is does count?

Thanks in advance.

You are correct that a GM claiming the sceanrio reward does on receive any favors, boons, etc on the chronicle sheet.

Note, the favor you referenced is from PFS#43 The Pallid Plague and this is the thread for PFS#6 Black Waters :)

Well, crap. Now I feel like an idiot... :) Thanks for the reply, though.

I ran this adventure over the weekend and had a question about GM credit - is the "Exemplar of Falcon's Hollow" reward something a GM gets? I only ask because I'm not sure if it falls under the "regional
boons, or future bonus dice rolls" heading.

I'm guessing it does fall under this category and am not taking it regardless, but I'd like to know whether is does count?

I ran "Black Waters" over this weekend and ended up in a bit of a dilema, one that cost a PC his life.

Spoiler:

In the last fight with the ghast, the party went right for his alcove without knowing he was there. Two of the characters got paralyzed in the alcove, and the rest retreated (without their paralyzed party members) back into the room with the circle of students. A ghast has an Int of 17 and a Wis of 18, so wouldn't just blindly charge out and leave his two meals alone to un-paralyze and hit him from behind. I gave a 30/30/40 chance that he'd try and kill (coup de grace) one of the PCs (30% for each) or would actually charge out and try to get the others. I rolled really low, so one of the PCs died. After this, of course, the other PCs came running back to try and protect their other party member.

How should I have handled this? Should I have had the ghoul just make normal full round attacks on each paralyzed individual (which would have probably killed them anyways)?

I know that the PCs didn't run away because they were hoping the ghould followed them and leave their friends alone.

I guess this boils down to a more fundamental question - how to play intelligent evil? I feel that the game is more fun when there is actually a chance that your character can die. Intelligent creatures are where I feel this danger lies. While it's easy to have a mindless creature switch from the incapacitated character to whoever struck it last, I feel the smarter ones will be more methodical in how they deal with the heroes.

I don't like killing PCs. However, other than blantanly going "Well, everyone else ran away and left you to die but instead I'm going to run out and chase the rest of the party" I didn't see away around this. While I don't think that the players (especially the one who died) would have objected, it seems like it turns the game into a "show up and win" scenario with no challenge.

I'd like to know if there's any official stance on something like this, as well as other GM's thoughts.

I ran this at a PFS home game this weekend. It went pretty well, but after reading some of the info on here I now have a couple of questions:

Spoilers:

1) In Act 3, when helping Laurel is says that "Once Laurel succeeds in curing the PCs (and Inor) of the disease, she now has the recipe to for an antiplague concoction..." As this reads, she doesn't have the anti-plague until she cures at least 1 PC. I take this to mean that one PC makes the pair of successive fort saves. Am I mis-reading that? This proved almost impossible for my party of 5, and in fact the only reason I didn't lose any PCs was that one had a couple of scrolls of Lesser Restoration.
2) In act 3 as well, Laurel is using her heal skill to help the PCs. This means they get a bonus on their next save, which is the next day. As noted in a previous post, their fort saves go down with each failed save. Does Laurel give them early saves or the like?

A few notes about what happened

Spoiler:

My group led all the loggers back to town after the flamebloom field (which they burned) and stayed to help Laurel cure the loggers as well themselves. As such, I held off the cart scene until they were ready to go back out again. This was actually really fun, because everyone was "OH, CRAP! The disease is back!"

As someone mentioned earlier, putting out minis for all the guys at the feast and not just the combatants adds a lot to the encounter. I had Vondrella seated at the head of the table, but the PCs had no clear path directly to her. The barbarian was actually able to charge right up and attacked one of the feasters, who happened to be a non-combatant. This gave the bad guys a chance to actually do something.

My group was also convinced that the cultists had to have an antidote somewhere, as they were still alive and tending the fields. A way at least to halt the progression of the disease, even if it doesn't cure you. This make a lot of sense, actually, since after 12 days at most of failed saves there'd be no more cult. I know you can't really add something in to this scenario, but if something like this is put in another scenario it might be worth thinking about.

I had a ton of fun running this, and the reasons some of the PCs had when helping Laurel were pretty good.

One last note, this adventure poses a very real and large risk of death. Three failed fort saves could leave a low Cha character out of the adventure, or a low Con character dead.

I know this will sound silly, but can a druid change his nature bond once selected? I would guess not via RAI, but there's nothing in RAW to prevent this. Here's why I say that:

For the Paladin's "Divine Bond" on p. 63, the Ranger's "Hunter's Bond" on p. 66 and the Wizard's "Arcane Bond" on p. 78, they all say that they can't be changed once selected. However, there's nothing in the Druid's "Nature Bond" saying that it can't be changed.

As I GM PFS games, I'd like to get the official ruling on this. I'd also welcome any other advice on it. As I said, I'm pretty sure they can't change it via RAI, but what concerns me is the RAW interpretation.

I did a lot of looking into this for a concept I was working on. Here's what I came up with.

1) Shield spikes are listed in the CR as armor, not weapons. All they do is change the damage type of the shield from bludgeoning to piercing.
2) A shield is armor that can be used as a weapon. See CR p.152.
3) You can choose to enchant a shield as either a weapon or armor. Since the rules are unclear (and I'd like some official ruling on it), I'd go with one of these options:
a) You can choose to enchant a shield as either a weapon or armor. Once chosen, you can't change it. Enhancements made as a weapon don't change the shield properties, and enhancements made as a shield don't help when using it as a weapon (with the obvious exceptions like Bashing).
b) You can enchant a shield as both a weapon and armor, but treat it as two different items for the purpose of enchanting. That is, you could have it as a +2 shield and a +1 flaming weapon. You'd get +2 on your AC but only +1 on attacks.

I personally lean with method A, as method B opens the door to people trying to enchant boots and gloves as weapons as well as items of Str/Dex/Etc. (+2 Holy Dancing boots of elvenkind seem kinda wierd).

The reason I used boots and gloves is that someone might try to enchant them as weapons to help with unarmed attacks. I know the example above is rather silly, but I can see where it might be tried.

Instead of swapping out that one point into Perception, why not add reach to one of his attacks? Seems like it might be a point better spent and more in-line with where he's going - different parts of his body keep growing as he progresses in size. Just a though.

OK, so at level 9, the eidolon has only 13 points to use for its evolution. Thanks a lot!

Hey, 13 is a lot :P

I see it when I buildt the eidolon against the PCs for friday ;-D

Check the APG. One of the alternate favored class bonuses (for gnomes, I believe), is that they can add 1/4 to their evolution pool every level so that at level 9 the Eidolon would have 15.25 instead of 13. (I read that as .25 points, not 1/4 of their total pool.) THis can be especially handy if you want to use some of the evolution points for yourself (which is one of the evolutions).

Count me in the camp of 'make it a dern class feature if you're going to require fighter levels'. The only things that should be used for feat prerequisites are BAB, skill ranks, and caster level. Thus, characters cannot get a feat before the point you think it is appropriate, and they don't have to plan out their character in advance when they want a certain feat, and they don't get screwed when they decide they want a feat but need three other feats to get the one they want.

I think the fighter level requirements are there to keep every fighter from getting free weapon focus/specialization. With the sheer number of options a fighter has, they may not want to spend that feat on the extra damage and instead get a combat manuever or defensive feats. They also may not want to focus on a single weapon, so spend their feat elsewhere.

As for only requiring BAB, skill ranks or caster levels for feat, I stongly disagree. You should spend some time planning out a character. I can't see any reason why an 11th level fighter with a 10 Dex who's always wielded a two-handed weapon should be able to pick up Greater Two-Weapon Fighting for two additional off-hand attacks or why a wizard should be able to pick up Heavy Armor Proficiency without taking anything else. However, I do think there should be feats that allow a character to use one stat in place of another for feat prerequisites. (Say, something that may allow a fighter to use Wis instead of Int to qualify for Combat Expertise.)

Sorry for the extreme thread necromancy, but I am not aware of any progress on this unclear rule issue.

Could we please get an official ruling, preferably in the form of an errata included in the next version of the PHB?

- Does Produce Flame allow an attack with the flame as a free action in the round in which it is cast?

- Is it possible to use the flame to make iterative attacks?

Well, it may not be much but here's my take on it:

1) Since the spell does NOT have a "Target" or "Area" entry, you can't attack the round you cast it. (The spell's primary intention appears to be illumination, not damage.)
2) I don't think multiple attacks with ranged is allowed. Under "Thrown Weapons" (CR p.141) - Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action. That prevents multiple attacks in a round.
3) Multiple melee attacks can be either. The spell specifically states that "You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack...", so using it as a melee touch attack is once a round. However...,
4) You CAN make multiple attacks using natural attacks, according to the rules for "Holding a Charge" on page 186 in the CR. Specifically, "you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge." and "If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed strike or natural weapon and the spell discharges." Where I'd deviate from this rule is the fact that the spell specifically states that "Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute." This means whether you hit or not, you lose duration.
5) TWF is technically out of it unless you cast the spell twice and are using only unarmed attacks (see above). I say this because it doesn't say that a melee attack causes the flame to wink out and reappear, just that it uses duration.
6) Since you are not "holding a charge" with this spell, casting something else shouldn't cancel it. (Personally, I think that holding a charge applies only to spells that are instant. It's to allow a caster to cast a touch spell from a safe distance then close in, or use it for an AoO/readied action.)

Sorry, but this isn't right. If you enchant a shield (or its spikes) to gain an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, you pay the same as any weapon.

You wouldn't be enchanting the spikes, you would be enchanting the shield itself since Shield master does the following Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus. This is how you would be doing it. In addition I could enchant my spikes for +1 and any number of Flaming, Frost, Corrosive and add that to my attacks as well, although it gets expensive enchanting to different things.

Actually, there's a few things that seem wrong there.

1) Shield spikes are not weapons. They increase the damage type to piercing and damage die, but they are not waepons themselves. They're even listed under armor and not weapons.
2) Is says a spiked shield (not shield spikes) "can be made into a weapon in it's own right." - To me, this sounds like you can either enchant it like armor, or enchant it like a weapon. Once you pick an enchantment type, it stays that.

Carbon D. Metric wrote:

To the point about the offhand light shield, you wouldn't be using an offhand light, you'd be using another heavy bashing, likely enchanted in a similar way so you would be using 2 weapons at 2d6 + Whatever else.

In fact I could get two +3 Bashing Heavy Steel Shileds for the price of one of you +3 Flaming Dwarven Waraxe!

Which would function at +5 to hit and damage each, with free bull rushes on each attack with no TWF penalties. I have since backed down from the whole "no penalties ever" thing because I don't know a DM alive who would let it fly even if RAW is RAW.

3) A +3 Bashing Heavy Shield would only get +3. In the latest printing (and I assume the errata), Shield Master lets you "add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus".

a) Additionally, while you get to add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls, it doesn't say it makes the shield count as a magic weapon. This begs the question of whether it would bypass DR. I know this can be read either way, so I thought it worth asking.

Carbon D. Metric wrote:

Ok, at level 11 with the correct feats the attack chain should look like this assuming +3 Str with the above mentioned shields.

+19/+14/+9/+19/+19/+19 (2d6)+ 8

With the guide package for ranger you can get another +6 to hit and damage on a target of your choice up to 3 times a day, and reroll a missed attack (or make an enemy reroll) once a day.

3) If the rope is destroyed, does the spell end or are the occupants trapped inside until the spell ends?

Neither, I think. Folks inside the extra-dimensional space just don't have an easy means of exit, and folks outside the space can't find the entrance as easily.

Playing it this way could be problematic. The reason that the spell was changed from 3.5 (where you could pull the rope in after you) to PF (where you couldn't) was to make it easier for opponents to find the party, thus limiting its usefulness (some would say, abuse). If the rope can be cut/destroyed, then there's no real reason not to, thus returning the spell to it's 3.5 incarnation.

Now, how to rule on it? I don't have a clue. Time to hit the FAQ button.

Hmm. I'm with Mynameisjake on this one. Given than it specifically mentions that the rope can't be removed or hidden, but that it can be pulled free with an insane amount of weight (around a 35 STR score). I'm thinking that the spell should also have a focus, that being the rope. If the rope is removed from the spell, the spell ends. However, I'd counter it by giving the rope something like a hardness of 25. Prevent most things that don't have an insane strength from cutting it, either.

A little more reading has my brain going. Please give me some feedback.

1) The spell specifically states that "the upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space..." - This to me sounds like the rope ends at the outside of the rope trick, and does not go inside it (much like a rope ladder ends at a trap door, rather than continuing up another 5'). Also, if the rope went inside then a 5' rope wouldn't be outside the rope trick.
2) "... one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, ..." - if the rope can't extend its whole distance, (such as using a 15' piece of rope in a 10' high room), the spell fails. (This also ties in to question 1 - if the rope does extend inside the extradimensional space, then anything in excess of the ceiling height would extend into the space.)
3) "When this spell is cast on a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, ..." - If cast on a 50' piece of rope, this spell should fail. Additionally, you must have the appropriate sized rope. You can't cast the spell on your 30' rope and have it only go up 5'.
4) "Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface, ..." - Can someone lean out and cast a spell, or do they fully have to exit to cast? For instance, can a cleric take a move action to lean out and then cast?
a) If they did, would they have cover since only part of them is in this dimension?
5) How can you determine spash damage if an alchemist fire was thrown in since there's no description of size or layout?

I'm leaning towards intepreting the size of the space as exactly what's needed to hold the number of people inside it. If there's one medium-sized creature in it, there's a 5'x5' area in addition to the entrance. If there are 2 large and 3 medium, then it would have 11 squares - 2 sets of 10'x10' and 3 at 5'x5'. Again, these are all in addition to the entrance.

1) As an extra-dimensional space, can it be shaped however the caster likes? For instance, does the rope have to come in through the bottom or can they have it come through the side? (If it's coming in through the side, the people inside can block unauthorized entry by standing in the entry square.)

I'm not aware of anything that says this is so. I also don't think it's an unreasonable assertion by the player. Regardless, a person can block the entry square wherever it resides. But once folks on the outside are aware the way in is blocked, they can use the normal means of passing that square (bull rush, overrun, Acrobatics, etc.).

I feel silly. I hadn't thought about acrobatics. I was busy trying to figure out how to bull rush up a rope... However, I'm thinking there should be a Fort save (DC 15) to keep from being nauseated at the change of gravity if the orientation is other than up through the middle.

Tom Baumbach wrote:

Yaramos wrote:

2) Summoning spells - can they be cast inside the the monsters sent out? This is my major concern, as you can hide inside it and send monster after monster out after the enemies. I know that ROpe Trick says spells can't e cast into or out of the rope trick, but the Summon spell isn't cast outside or through.

I've had to rule on this as a GM before. I say the summoned creature (if the summoner is able to command it to climb down the rope, need a shared language for that) winks out after exiting the extra-dimensional space, since summoned creatures are barred from planar travel.

The Core Rulebook says only that "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities." Leaving a rope trick isn't a planar travel ability. However, any creature leaving the rope trick would be subject to the fort save I mentioned above. Additionally, an acrobatics check when leaving to land on their feet if they can't climb out.

Thanks for the input! It's got me thinking on ways to make it useful, but not overpowering. Any input on these ideas would be vreat, too!

I ran a game a couple weeks ago and had one of the PCs use Rope Trick in an intersting fashion. I went ahead and ruled for him to do it this time, I'd like to get some clarifications so that it doesn't become a habit (because it can be extremely overpowering).

1) As an extra-dimensional space, can it be shaped however the caster likes? For instance, does the rope have to come in through the bottom or can they have it come through the side? (If it's coming in through the side, the people inside can block unauthorized entry by standing in the entry square.)

2) Summoning spells - can they be cast inside the the monsters sent out? This is my major concern, as you can hide inside it and send monster after monster out after the enemies. I know that ROpe Trick says spells can't e cast into or out of the rope trick, but the Summon spell isn't cast outside or through.

3) If the rope is destroyed, does the spell end or are the occupants trapped inside until the spell ends?

Any help that can be provided would be awesome. I thought I recalled something about the caster having to remain on the same plane as his summoned creatures, but try as I might I couldn't find anything to back it up.